1993 (7) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in passing the Order under sub-section (2) of Section 35E of the Act.
2. Power of the Collector (Appeals) to condone the delay.
3. Interpretation of the period of one year under sub-section (3) of Section 35E of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, concerning the recovery of excise duty on printed boxes made out of solid board. The Assistant Collector initially dropped the demand, but the concerned Collector of Central Excise directed the Assistant Collector to file an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) to set aside the adjudication order. The appellants contested the Show Cause Notice, leading to the current appeal.

The main contention raised was regarding the time limitation under sub-section (3) of Section 35E of the Act. The appellants argued that the Order passed by the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 35E was beyond one year from the date of the Adjudicating Authority's order, making it time-barred. Citing a relevant case law, the appellants emphasized the importance of the one-year period from the date of the Adjudicating Authority's order.

The Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise was indeed beyond the one-year limit, prompting the Collector to request condonation of the delay citing administrative reasons and the importance of the legal issue involved. The Collector (Appeals) ultimately condoned the delay, but the appellants challenged this decision based on the interpretation of the one-year period as per the relevant case law.

Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the Order passed by the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 35E after the one-year period was invalid and ineffective. Additionally, it was clarified that the Collector (Appeals) did not possess the authority to condone such delays in passing orders under this section. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, with any consequential relief to be granted as per the law.